zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Changing the RfA Voting
So because of my recent RfA I've been thinking about them a bit and came to a simple conclusion (much do to AK's probably half-serious vote). Because of our simple, 150 MS edit requirement, this allows anyone who has that many edits to vote. So what if in theory there's someone running for admin and they get six supports from editors with good judgment and one editor with bad judgment? It wouldn't really be fair. The problem here is that people like HoT87 exist...decent editors who can easily qualify, but horrible judgment. So I'm thinking, possibly, we should limit the RfA voting to rollbackers and administrators. And I know loads will cry "corrupt administration", or some bull, but it makes sense. Because of our recent influx of new, incompetent users who don't stay long, almost the only competent users are admin/rollback. Additionally, usually if we GET a competent user who sticks around, they get promoted to rollback just like that. It also gives the feel that the current 'staff' are choosing the new 'staff', which is something that I personally find completely acceptable. This way it limits the voting to competent users who can make educated decisions regarding the RfA. I know a lot of people aren't going to love this but I thought I'd bring it up. So...uh, discuss. ~Minish (talk) 05:18, August 15, 2012 (UTC) Discussion I could see doing this if the non-rollback/admin/bureaucrat users could vote in rollback elections and this requirement were reserved for promotions to admin or bureaucrat. That way the normal users would still get some say in the process. -'Isdrak ' 05:14, August 15, 2012 (UTC) :I like this idea because it sort of gives non-rights users indirect control over the process, since they're electing the people who will ultimately elect the people who make big decisions, etc. ~Minish (talk) 05:16, August 15, 2012 (UTC) ::I concur with Drakky. The thought process behind rollback selection is much simpler than that for admin selection. For rollback, you really only have to see if the person makes quality edits and knows the difference between a good-faith bad edit and vandalism. More responsibilities are required for being an admin, and those who already have a staff position have a much better idea of what that entails than non-staff members. Jedimasterlink (talk) 05:33, August 15, 2012 (UTC) :::I think something like this could work. I was always in favor of giving admins more control over admin promotions, recommending that at least two supports from admins were needed for the request to pass. This was when the site was very active and I feared then what minish is concerned with now: uniformed users making hasty decisions. But this new idea wouldn't be increasing the control of admins, it would be giving full control to rollbackers/admins. Still, the idea that users voted into rollback are the ones trusted by the community to make these decisions in the first place seems like a solid argument. I'd be fine with this new policy. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 05:51, August 15, 2012 (UTC) ::::In my opinion, I feel that this is complete asinine. The wiki may be run by its strong administration, but it is corrupt to have its team of rollbackers and administrators be the only ones to decide who gets these rights. I feel that the actual userbase of the wiki should be the one to decide its leaders. I have always felt that Zeldapedia has grown a very unwelcoming and narcissistic reputation, and this won't help at all, so in other words, I'm opposing this change. – Wattz2000 16:53, August 15, 2012 (UTC) Has it caused any problems yet by who we have the system? Not really. Could the system be improved? Yes. I just don't feel like there is much value in this. I would say that the idea could be improved upon. I still think normal users should have a direct say in admin votes. Making a policy where there must be x number of rollbackers support or y% of active rollbackers would make more sense. --Birdman5589 (talk) 17:04, August 15, 2012 (UTC) You both bring up valid points. Zeldapedia does have a relatively bad reputation and this wouldn't help it, etc. While I do like this general idea it can still be improved upon; Birdie's idea that there needs to be x/y% or x/y number of votes from rollback/admins works; we could also try improving the requirements to try and make it so that it's easier to let users who know what they're doing vote - after all, the 150 edits thing simply refers to quantity; all those edits could be terrible. I'm not sure HOW the voting requirements could be modified, but there's probably something. Additionally, how do you all feel about a case similar to mine, say (but more serious...I...think AK's vote is only half serious?) someone running for admin and they get the supports they need, but one person opposes? Then should they be put back by that one oppose, or should they get through anyway? Like, regardless of the person's judgement, should there be some kind of rule where it still goes through if it only has one oppose and the required number of supports, or something? I dunno, just throwing ideas out there. ~Minish (talk) 17:17, August 15, 2012 (UTC) ::As for requirements, I feel that the only real change should be that a person should be a certain month age to the wiki, and their contributions to the wiki deemed worthy to vote or not. Personally, with the current edit requirement having to mainspace edits, I think it should be any edits (excluding userspace, possibly project, etc.) on the basis that users do a variety of helpful edits on the wiki. Not everyone works with mainspace. As I said, the edits should be reviewed by administration to seem if the voter is legible for voting. It's not the best, but provides a decent basis for how it should work. I do think an x/y% number of votes regarding rollbacks/admins does work as well. Perhaps a point system detailing 1 point for regular user support, 1.5 points for rollback, 2 for administrator? Pretty dumb system, but basic. : P – Wattz2000 17:30, August 15, 2012 (UTC) We don't have a problem with the current system, but AmazingLink once voted on my RfA saying that I was a good friend. Things like that can't be done. I agree with this. – Jazzi (talk) 17:39, August 15, 2012 (UTC) Wattz's system needs some improving, but I think it works. What if we say that one week of activity and two months of overall time, as well as 200 non-user/project-space edits, allows for voting? As opposed to having the admins individually disallow and allow each voter beforehand, when a non-rollback/admin votes, an administrator can look over their vote to make sure that they're a helpful/etc. user - if they've clearly been causing problems and have a lot of edits reverted, etc., their vote can be removed. We already have a 'point system', as it were, but perhaps we can improve that - I think 1 point for a regular user, 1.5 for rollback works; 2 might be a bit much for admin, but if you guys think that's fine I'm okay with it - if not, we could always just say 1.5 points for both rollback and administrator. If we do do that we'll have to up the amount of 'points' needed to pass, though; I'm not sure by how much. ~Minish (talk) 17:45, August 15, 2012 (UTC) It's not enough that a few admins and rollbackers think that somebody else has "horrible judgment". There needs to be a hard and fast rule, otherwise we reinforce the primarily elitist mentality of the wiki as a whole. It is definitely true that nowadays we have a mostly administration-run community — ever since we started promoting the smart, rational people from the old days to positions of power, the idiots have flocked to the lower tiers, resulting in our flood of incompetent new users. It won't always be this way, though, which is why I can't really support locking all the decisions out of the community as a whole. As for a solution? Well, to be honest...I feel like all we really need to do to get rid of this problem is get rid of votes that have clearly invalid reasoning — joke votes, "we're friends" votes, "he/she was mean to me" votes, etc. Most of the really stupid people will either not vote or just give asinine reasons for what they're saying. Even if most other people disagree with a given person, he or she really should have the right to voice their opinion as long as it's a real perspective on why the requester should or should not be promoted. ''Xykeb Yvolix '' 18:32, August 15, 2012 (UTC) :Yeah, I see what you mean. I guess we could make a rule allowing the removal of invalid votes (the ones you mention, obviously) and leave it at that. ~Minish (talk) 18:54, August 15, 2012 (UTC) ::Considering pretty much anyone who shows some kind of editing usefulness can become rollbacker with little trouble having it so only rollback/admins have the ability to vote for admins wouldn't really be that dictatorial at all. The problem is how we come across. I'd be in favor of the points suggestion as that would make it so unless there was a large amount of rankless users voting, someone who deserves the position they're going for would likely get through. And removing baseless votes is also a smart idea that we really should have enforced from the start. Oni Link 19:00, August 15, 2012 (UTC) :::Removing baseless votes is definitely a good idea. Just doing that may make it unnecessary to prevent non-staff members from voting. Things like "you're nice, so I support you" or "you're too nice to be allowed to promote people" simply shouldn't be allowed. Heck, staff members sometimes make some pretty asinine votes in RfA's (we sure love that word in this forum, don't we?), so locking out non-staff members wouldn't solve the entire problem anyway. Jedimasterlink (talk) 20:34, August 15, 2012 (UTC) For what it's worth, I think it's hard for Zeldapedia to be a "community-friendly" Wiki, or whatever. Admins/Rollbackers will always be "upper class", if you will, but I think that allowing non-Admins to vote and whatnot is good. That being said, however, I agree that we should up the ante on voting requirements, so as to ensure that only competent users can vote. And yes, I think removing baseless votes is one way to curb the problem. —'Ceiling Master' 00:27, August 16, 2012 (UTC) I've been thinking about this a bit more and I don't think we should do it. The instance of a bad vote that has been cited in this case actually came from an administrator and it's not like we've had a widespread problem with senseless votes in any case. I would consider removing votes with invalid reasons, but I think that has a potential for abuse; if we do so, we should definitely develop some written qualifications for invalid votes. -'Isdrak ' 18:36, August 16, 2012 (UTC) :I agree completely - it can easily get abused if there are no qualifications. Offhand, some I can think of right now: * Votes citing only friendship as a reason * Votes citing only senseless complaining as a reason (i.e. he/she is not my friend, he/she undid my edits, I just don't like him/her, etc.) * If the vote in question is for a bureaucrat rights after the user in question has become an administrator, only other administrators can remove votes, in case of bias :Anyway, I think those could help something, and I'm sure there are others that could be added...but they're just ideas and probably need improvement. ~Minish (talk) 20:09, August 16, 2012 (UTC) ::We would have to have a pretty good majority in favor of removing a poorly reasoned vote. Maybe at least 75% or 80% of active bureaucrats, admins, and rollbackers or something. Speaking of being active, at what point does a person become "inactive"? Is there a particular amount of time someone has to go without editing to become inactive? I've looked around for a definite rule for this, but have never actually found one. Jedimasterlink (talk) 01:21, August 17, 2012 (UTC) ::: Usually it's the time it takes for one of us to spontaneously realize we haven't seen someone in a while. Oni Link 01:36, August 17, 2012 (UTC)